Krishnamurti, spirituality, egocentricity, and freedom from self

[roger]

Part of Krishnamurti's point, imo part of the essence of his teaching, was that "spirituality" just makes people MORE egocentric, MORE self-centered and self-absorbed.

 

When I look at my own path, at myself, I see this.

 

It's like MY path, MY life, MY experience, MY enlightenment, have been of supreme importance to me.

 

Is that good?? Maybe it is, the truth is I really don't know.

 

We have to care for and tend to our lives and paths, we should CARE about succeeding.

 

But what about "freedom from self" and "dying to self"?

 

Is the kind of self-concern people have good?

 

Please share your thoughts if you have any.

[Nungali]

A lot of what Krishnamurti did and said was a reaction against the BS  of the Theosophical Society that  tried to mould him into something he wasnt and bring him forward to 'save the world' ... and their own agenda . 

 

he saw through it all and was honest enough to reveal the truth to the masses . 

 

I think the point is ,  many groups just dont have a balanced curriculum and allow these things to develop.  In some groups, there seems to be no ethical training whatsoever. 

 

I have seen some really bad examples of this -   being  egocentric, MORE self-centered and self-absorbed.  Some even  dont know their own system . In one case, I seemed to know more than the group I was employed by, just because I read their introductory material so I could do the job well .  As time went on, I realised no one else had read it .

 

Yet many of them were 'up themselves', 'holier than thou' and felt they had a special insight  or some such  BS . They had a luncheon one day and had some other guests there .  The self appointed ,would be,  boss ( who was secretly trying to undermine the CEO with gossip and innuendo .... and he actually got the sack, they promoted her and then had to sack her due to mess she made ! )  pipes up at dinner .... in a silly  affirmative voice ;

 

"Steiner said the first thing the initiate encounters is the Guardian at the Threshold ."

 

Another woman at the table ;  " Goodness !   ... but how does one become an initiate ? "

 

The first, hesitates, stumped , and now, dropping the 'spiritual teacher' accent has reverted back to her North Queensland Aussie drawl .....  "   Ohhhh   .... I   dont know ...  ?   " 

 

Why bother studying and going through the grind when you can just  'pose'  and sprout quotes ?

 

Conversely , I have met a few gems  , unpretentious, unassuming and a wealth of knowledge and a delight to meet , including some robed Buddhist monks and 2 lamas ....   friendly, chatty, interested in my viewpoint as I was in theirs, able to hold up a sensible and logical debate / discussion, open to hear new viewpoints ... etc . 

 

You should be able to tell when you meet them ,   dont be fooled by external glitz and glam .

[Karl]

Part of Krishnamurti's point, imo part of the essence of his teaching, was that "spirituality" just makes people MORE egocentric, MORE self-centered and self-absorbed.

 

When I look at my own path, at myself, I see this.

 

It's like MY path, MY life, MY experience, MY enlightenment, have been of supreme importance to me.

 

Is that good?? Maybe it is, the truth is I really don't know.

 

We have to care for and tend to our lives and paths, we should CARE about succeeding.

 

But what about "freedom from self" and "dying to self"?

 

Is the kind of self-concern people have good?

 

Please share your thoughts if you have any.

Exactly. This was my first discovery, that whatever I thought I had managed to gain some distance from, so the necessity of gaining that distance became the goal and replaced the previous concern. When I had done that several many times it became clear that this path I was on did not change anything fundamentally, I simply swapped wine for water.

 

objectivism posits rational selfishness. This is a selfishness which has a set of attached principles which must be independently chosen by each person. These virtues aren't random but should be chosen in the context of supporting your own life and this means respecting all other human lives as a result. It's important to understand the rational part is key, it isn't hedonism, nor is it grabbing power over others.

 

For instance: honesty, integrity, productiveness, independence, justice and pride are a good beginning. Pride in this case is self esteem for keeping with those other virtues. However you can add others in any order as you see fit, but these a self supporting fundamental virtues. Use them to guide all life decisions. You can be both selfish and virtuous. Self esteem promotes confidence and effectiveness in difficult situations, or faced with tough decisions. If you are more effective and confident then you can be more loving and open. There is no longer a need to pretend to be someone, no need to fit in, nor conform in order for others to give you strokes and prestige. Negative criticism simply glances off like off a piece of granite.

[steve]

Part of Krishnamurti's point, imo part of the essence of his teaching, was that "spirituality" just makes people MORE egocentric, MORE self-centered and self-absorbed.

 

When I look at my own path, at myself, I see this.

 

It's like MY path, MY life, MY experience, MY enlightenment, have been of supreme importance to me.

 

Is that good?? Maybe it is, the truth is I really don't know.

 

We have to care for and tend to our lives and paths, we should CARE about succeeding.

 

But what about "freedom from self" and "dying to self"?

 

Is the kind of self-concern people have good?

 

Please share your thoughts if you have any.

 

Dear roger,

 

JK seemed to be very sensitive to the potential for negative consequences of spiritual practices, what is often currently referred to as spiritual materialism. As mentioned above, I think was in part a reaction to the Theosophical Society. For me, his most important message was the admonition that we need to do more than follow, more than believe, more than think, more than expect someone else or some specific method or idea to change us. We need to look deeply into ourselves and see what is and find out for ourselves if there is anything beyond thought, beyond time. 

 

None of us will ever be fully without elements of our self, our ego. We may have an insight into our deeper nature and may even have varying degrees of direct experience of that, but as long as we are living people, the self will be an intimate part of our experience. 

 

So the place we must always start working is with that self, as it is. We must experience it directly, beyond the intervention of the thinking, labelling, judging mind. If we are dedicated and persistent, if we have enormous energy (as JK used to say), we will see for ourselves what is true. 

 

Where I disagree with him is regarding paths. Perhaps his most famous quote - Truth is a Pathless Land. We all follow paths in our lives, many of them. His was a path, his many followers followed his teachings. Different people need different things at different times. It is true that there is nowhere to go, you are already there so there is no method or path to take you where you already are, and yet how many of us manifest enlightened qualities in our every waking and sleeping moment? As Peter Fenner says 'If I never did what I didn't need to do I wouldn't know I didn't need to do it.' 

 

We walk the paths we find ourselves on as long as we need to. I think they sometimes help us break through illusions and obstacles and can help bring us closer to truth. They can help break dysfunctional patterns and habits. As we walk these paths we should care about succeeding; we should use the illusion to help break through it. JK had us use the power of thought to try and transcend its limitations. 

 

Freedom from self does not mean there is no experience of self, it means to see it for what it is and to free oneself from overly identifying with it, riding its wave without realizing we can get off at any time. We are no longer slaves to the illusion that the one who thinks is substantial and independently existent. And yet we still experience life in all its splendor and pain. It is what we have in this life. So what to do with it?

 

The Mahayana approach solves the problem of spiritual egoism and materialism through the teaching of Bodhicitta. The spiritual adept vows to achieve liberation specifically in order to liberate others. This is extremely sophisticated and beneficial on many levels. This is reinforced when the aspirant becomes an arhat and has direct contact with the nature of self and the direct experience of unconditional love.

 

One cannot expect to liberate others from a position of ignorance and confusion therefore you must first cultivate and liberate yourself first. Not for selfish reasons but with the intention of continuing to work on behalf of other living creatures. If one liberates oneself for one's own sake only, that is a selfish act and the very nature of such an act is in direct conflict with the path as you point out.

 

Anyway, I don't know if that helps at all but it's what occurs to me in this moment.

Warm regards 

[Karl]

You are simply preaching altruism, but do you ever ask why ?

Why is it that you believe you should live your life for others, that you should sacrifice your happiness for their sakes ? What argument do you have to support that premise ?

[Jetsun]

You are simply preaching altruism, but do you ever ask why ?

Why is it that you believe you should live your life for others, that you should sacrifice your happiness for their sakes ? What argument do you have to support that premise ?

There is a lot of evidence that it increases your own happiness and sense of wellbeing to practice altruism. So even if it's a form of intelligent selfishness everyone benefits. Edited November 15, 2016 by Jetsun

[Karl]

There is a lot of evidence that it increases your own happiness and sense of wellbeing to practice altruism. So even if it's a form of intelligent selfishness everyone benefits.

That isn't what altruism means Jetsun. It means 'selfless' and 'unconditional'.

 

What you are talking about is individual acts of charity and kindness which is fine if that increases your own happiness then all power to you being free to choose and practice doing so. Equally, this means that others must be free to choose not to be charitable and to be equally happy with that decision.

 

The difference here is that people who insist that charity is good for everyone and then attempt to force people to accept that claim as an absolute truth-strangely enough these are the same people who claim there are no absolutes.

 

Neither can you claim 'everybody benefits' from a charitable act, you cannot know if anyone benefits. You van give a coin to a street beggar and they can go and spend it on alcohol or drugs. Certainly it cannot be claimed that pure altruism -unjudged action is any benefit, giving a gun to a murderer that is short of an implement to kill a victim requires judgement, but that altruist would not have a judgement, he must perceive need of another as the prime value in his life.

 

Altruism isnt about flipping a coin at the street beggar, but that the street beggar has a claim on your life. I have never yet heard an cognisant argument that shows why that should be true.

 

Steve is claiming that Roger must let go of his ego, his right to live his life and become a selfless ghost that cares not if he is happy, unhappy, alive or dead. That he is better as a man who takes no pleasure from charity, nor of kindness, who is effectively dead to the world like a rock that can be smashed into dust, chiseled into a statue, or placed as a headstone on a grave. This would be a man who would take a wife, not because he loved her values, but because she was a woman, any woman and he did not care for her, nor hate her, she would be nothing more than dust on the sole of a shoe and she should accept that as normal.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Karl

[gatito]

Altruism isnt about flipping a coin at the street beggar, but that the street beggar has a claim on your life. I have never yet heard an cognisant argument that shows why that should be true.

 

That's where you're going wrong.

 

[Karl]

That's where you're going wrong.

 

You think the beggar should have a claim on your life ? Or that you shouldn't flip him a coin ?

[gatito]

You think the beggar should have a claim on your life ? Or that you shouldn't flip him a coin ?

 

 

Neither.

[Karl]

 

Neither.

So neither altruism, nor charity. Fine by me.

[gatito]

So neither altruism, nor charity. Fine by me.

 

 

That isn't what I said Karl.

 

That's another way that you get it  wrong.

 

[Karl]

 

That isn't what I said Karl.

 

That's another way that you get it wrong.

 

You made a statement and a refutation but failed to produce an argument. If you don't have one that fine, but playing Mr Tease is a might boring.

[gatito]

You made a statement and a refutation but failed to produce an argument. If you don't have one that fine, but playing Mr Tease is a might boring.

 

 

I think that most of us are indeed bored shitless Karl.

 

I'm just cutting to the chase for us (the bored shitless group).

 

[Karl]

You have no chase, it's apparent you are too apathetic to reach the starting line.

[gatito]

You have no chase, it's apparent you are too apathetic to reach the starting line.

 

 

Another pedictable (and boring) reframe.

 

That's a third way that you're getting it wong.

 

[gatito]

 

[Nungali]

 

That isn't what I said Karl.

 

That's another way that you get it  wrong.

 

 

careful .....

 

I pointed out to Karl how he always had to change what I wrote so he could then criticise   what I   ... what he       then  wrote  

 

... and he never spoke to me again  .         

 

 

 

[Nungali]

 

 

Except  this is more of a case of the  laser being attached to the cats head .

 

An update on the old carrot and stick trick   

[gatito]

Part of Krishnamurti's point, imo part of the essence of his teaching, was that "spirituality" just makes people MORE egocentric, MORE self-centered and self-absorbed.

 

When I look at my own path, at myself, I see this.

 

It's like MY path, MY life, MY experience, MY enlightenment, have been of supreme importance to me.

 

Is that good?? Maybe it is, the truth is I really don't know.

 

We have to care for and tend to our lives and paths, we should CARE about succeeding.

 

But what about "freedom from self" and "dying to self"?

 

Is the kind of self-concern people have good?

 

Please share your thoughts if you have any.

 

You might find this useful: -

 

 

The other master signal to our cells - equal and in some respects, even more important than exercise is emotion. One of the most fascinating revelations of the last decade is that emotions change our cells through the same mechanisms as exercise. Anger, stress and loneliness are signals for "starvation" and chronic danger. They "melt" our bodies as surely as sedentary living. Optimism, love and community trigger the process of growth, building our hearts and minds... Everywhere you look, you see the role of emotion in our biology. Like exercise, it's a choice... Deep in our cells, down at the level of molecular genetics, we are wired to exercise and to care. Start today. Your cells are listening.

 

Henry Lodge MD. You Can Stop "Normal" Aging, Modesto Bee Supplement, March 18, 2007

[steve]

You are simply preaching altruism, but do you ever ask why ?

 

Why is it that you believe you should live your life for others, that you should sacrifice your happiness for their sakes ?

 

What argument do you have to support that premise ?

 

Yes

 

Your second question is a fallacy of presumption. I do not sacrifice my happiness for others sakes. 

I genuinely enrich my life through helping others.

 

It can be argued on many levels but I have limited time and interest for argument so I'll mention only a few.

 

Humanity is a social species. Our lives are enriched by connection. Isolation is difficult and extended, forced isolation is very traumatic. Connecting with and opening to others plays an important role in happiness. When we have a positive experience, we enjoying sharing it with others. When we are in a negative place, we benefit from the support of others. When we care for another living creature, it pains us to see them in pain, and it makes us happy to see them happy. This is empathy. 

 

At a social level we see disastrous consequences of loss of community. We see it in the high suicide rates in people who relocate from rural areas to cities. We see it in the scientific models that have shown addiction to be a direct result of social isolation rather than an inherent property of a chemical. 

 

When we focus solely on our own needs and desires, we limit ourselves. We are not open, we do not expose ourselves to anything different or new. We are stunted. We become selfish and defensive. We can see no possibility of there being a different way to be, to think, to act. We feel that we are at the center of the world, unique, and critically important. Growth requires openness and challenge. Interacting with others provides that challenge and opportunity. 

 

On a biological level, there is no such thing as an individual. The current trend in biological science is to look at systems - organism-environment systems. There has never been an organism without an environment. The two are inextricably interrelated, as are all living organisms and all environments. They are mutually dependent. The separation is artificial. Of course, there is an interplay of life and death but ultimately, if we care for our environment, if we care for each other, the synergistic effect is mutually supportive. If we exploit our environment and others, the result is less beneficial.

 

On a spiritual level, engaging in practices that subjugate the self help to break down dysfunctional patterns, rigid concepts, and false understandings. This again leads to more openness, more opportunity to connect and grow. Only in the spiritual arena we are connecting with and exploring ourselves, at progressively deeper and more subtle levels. If we are persistent and fortunate, we may see ourselves in the world in a wholly fresh and unique way in which that connection, that interdependence, that synergy is felt deeply and directly. At this level, hurting another is felt exactly as if hurting oneself. Pleasing another is as fulfilling as pleasing oneself. It is uncontrived and spontaneous. That is Bodhicitta.

[steve]

Steve is claiming that Roger must let go of his ego, his right to live his life and become a selfless ghost that cares not if he is happy, unhappy, alive or dead. That he is better as a man who takes no pleasure from charity, nor of kindness, who is effectively dead to the world like a rock that can be smashed into dust, chiseled into a statue, or placed as a headstone on a grave. This would be a man who would take a wife, not because he loved her values, but because she was a woman, any woman and he did not care for her, nor hate her, she would be nothing more than dust on the sole of a shoe and she should accept that as normal.

 

You're quite good at putting words in my mouth and making inaccurate assumptions. 

Not so good at being open to the possibility that there are alternative perspectives that are as valid as your own.

There are many different perspectives and many different ways to approach life.

I do not offer my view as correct or better than anyone else's.

I do not ask anyone to adopt it.

I just offer it as my own.

[Karl]

Steve you said this:

 

"The Mahayana approach solves the problem of spiritual egoism and materialism through the teaching of Bodhicitta. The spiritual adept vows to achieve liberation specifically in order to liberate others. This is extremely sophisticated and beneficial on many levels. This is reinforced when the aspirant becomes an arhat and has direct contact with the nature of self and the direct experience of unconditional love.

 

One cannot expect to liberate others from a position of ignorance and confusion therefore you must first cultivate and liberate yourself first. Not for selfish reasons but with the intention of continuing to work on behalf of other living creatures. If one liberates oneself for one's own sake only, that is a selfish act and the very nature of such an act is in direct conflict with the path as you point out."

 

"Unconditional love" and you condemn a "selfish act" that is very clear. I'm not being presumptive, you havent implied it, you have said so specifically.

 

I'm not twisting your words, you are preaching selflessness and Love without any 'I' in it. In the previous passage you mention that self liberation is ONLY for the purpose of liberating others. That one should not liberate themselves purely for the self.

 

The church and dictators have been preaching this kind of thing for millennia. It is an impossibility, a state which man cannot reach and thus his failure will result in suffering from guilt from failure.

 

I get the sense Roger knows this, but you are evading the truth by mixing it with notions of 'some sense of self' but with no specifics about how one can go from this to that except by some guru who tells you that it can be done. Your reply to me proves you are still trying, you haven't succeeded, but your tone is that of some adept.

 

Why do you insist on a claim to know something is true, but yet your actions are proof that you haven't attained the state that you talk about with such alacrity ?

[Karl]

You're quite good at putting words in my mouth and making inaccurate assumptions.

Not so good at being open to the possibility that there are alternative perspectives that are as valid as your own.

There are many different perspectives and many different ways to approach life.

I do not offer my view as correct or better than anyone else's.

I do not ask anyone to adopt it.

I just offer it as my own.

But my 'perspective' isn't a perspective. I'm not pretending to be something I'm promoting. Anyone can be like I am because they already are, it's their thinking, or non- thinking that is skewed.

 

Do you grasp what I'm saying ? I discovered what was me, minus the evasion of what I thought was, or should be me. I saw that trying to be selfless was causing me to evade and then reality would intrude in my little quiet circle that had been created.

 

You do offer your view as correct, please don't kid yourself, it's your philosophy and you can hardly pretend that it is divorced from you.

[Karl]

Yes

 

Your second question is a fallacy of presumption. I do not sacrifice my happiness for others sakes.

I genuinely enrich my life through helping others.

 

It can be argued on many levels but I have limited time and interest for argument so I'll mention only a few.

 

Humanity is a social species. Our lives are enriched by connection. Isolation is difficult and extended, forced isolation is very traumatic. Connecting with and opening to others plays an important role in happiness. When we have a positive experience, we enjoying sharing it with others. When we are in a negative place, we benefit from the support of others. When we care for another living creature, it pains us to see them in pain, and it makes us happy to see them happy. This is empathy.

 

At a social level we see disastrous consequences of loss of community. We see it in the high suicide rates in people who relocate from rural areas to cities. We see it in the scientific models that have shown addiction to be a direct result of social isolation rather than an inherent property of a chemical.

 

When we focus solely on our own needs and desires, we limit ourselves. We are not open, we do not expose ourselves to anything different or new. We are stunted. We become selfish and defensive. We can see no possibility of there being a different way to be, to think, to act. We feel that we are at the center of the world, unique, and critically important. Growth requires openness and challenge. Interacting with others provides that challenge and opportunity.

 

On a biological level, there is no such thing as an individual. The current trend in biological science is to look at systems - organism-environment systems. There has never been an organism without an environment. The two are inextricably interrelated, as are all living organisms and all environments. They are mutually dependent. The separation is artificial. Of course, there is an interplay of life and death but ultimately, if we care for our environment, if we care for each other, the synergistic effect is mutually supportive. If we exploit our environment and others, the result is less beneficial.

 

On a spiritual level, engaging in practices that subjugate the self help to break down dysfunctional patterns, rigid concepts, and false understandings. This again leads to more openness, more opportunity to connect and grow. Only in the spiritual arena we are connecting with and exploring ourselves, at progressively deeper and more subtle levels. If we are persistent and fortunate, we may see ourselves in the world in a wholly fresh and unique way in which that connection, that interdependence, that synergy is felt deeply and directly. At this level, hurting another is felt exactly as if hurting oneself. Pleasing another is as fulfilling as pleasing oneself. It is uncontrived and spontaneous. That is Bodhicitta.

Most of that is redundant explanation. You already admitted that you don't sacrifice your happiness in the first paragraph, so why go trying to justify altruism after you have admitted that you are both selfish and egoistic ?

 

All that hogwash about organisms and being no individuals is destroyed by one words in your opening sentence 'my'. You cannot be rid of the sense of it, so why pretend that you can, or that you have ?

Edited November 16, 2016 by Karl